Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.07.22 11:42:59 +0530 2025:CGHC:34343-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 197 of 2016 Suryamani Sahu S/o Late Jagannath Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tainjan, P.S. Bausuni, District Baudh, Odisha., Orissa ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Sariya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 32 of 2016 1 - Satyanarayan S/o Krishnachand Sandaha Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Gajrajpur, P.S. Bausuni, District Baudh Odisha. , Orissa 2 - Premchand Meher S/o Jageshwar Meher Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Gajrajpur, P.S. Bausuni, District Baudh Odisha. , District : Baudh *, Orissa ---Appellants Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station, Sariya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy.A.G. 2 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 18/07/2025 Heard. 1. 2. Since, both the appeals arise out of same Special Case No. 8/2013, therefore, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment. These appeals have been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (for short the, Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30/11/2015 passed in Special case No. 8/2013 by learned Special Judge District- Raigarh (C.G.), whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellants for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced them for 12 years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,00,000/- in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for one year. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 8/5/2013, Sub Inspector Saurabh Singh (PW-6) received information from informant that three persons were standing on the roadside near 3 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 the road leading to village Kanchanpur Bhulumuda with contraband Ganja in a white plastic bag and were waiting for a vehicle to go somewhere. The said information was recorded in the diary Entry No.20 and the constable sent notice to witnesses Lalchand Dansena and Vikram Gupta which was recorded in the diary Entry No.22, Ex.P. 26C. On the presence of the witnesses, the informant panchnama Ex.P.-27 was prepared. Thereafter, information was given to the higher authorities under Section 42 NDPS Act and along with the staff and witnesses, they reached the spot and gave notice Ex.P-2 as per Section 50 NDPS Act to the appellants and informed them about their legal rights and the appellants gave their consent to start investigation. On being questioned, the appellants said that they did not have any documents regarding transportation of contraband ganja. Search proceedings were conducted by the concerned authorities. 3 bags kept with the accused were searched. Identification proceedings were carried out and contraband ganja were found from the possession of the appellants and recovery panchnama prepared vice Ex.P-6 and as per wight panchnama vide Ex.P-7, 30 kgs ganja in 30 packets of one k.g. each inside a plastic bag was recovered from accused Satyanarayan, 22 kgs packets in a plastic bag totaling 22 kgs from accused Premchand and 29 packets in a white plastic bag totaling 29 kgs ganja was recovered from accused Suryamani. 4 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 Thereafter, 6 samples of 25 grams each were prepared by mixing them from each sack. Seizure memos Exs. P-11 to P-13 were prepared after seizing them in front of witnesses. The accused were arrested as per arrest memos Ex. P-32 to 34 and a Dehati Nalsi was registered vide Ex.P-18. After coming to the police station, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-17. The seized property was deposited in the malkhana of the police station for safety. The seized samples were sent to FSL Raipur for examination. As per the report Ex. P-39 and 40 received from FSL Raipur, the seized samples were found to be ganja. After completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Section 20B of NDPS Act. 4. When the charge-sheet was prepared and read out to the accused, they denied the crime and claimed trial. When the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they expressed innocence and falsely implicated and they would not give any defence. 5. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence these appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable 5 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellants for the alleged offence. There are non- compliance of the mandatory provisions of Section 42, 50, 52, 52- A, 55 and 57 of the NDPS Act. There is absolutely non- compliance of the Standing Order of 1/89 issued by the Central Government with respect to the procedure for drawing of the samples and in absence of any proper procedure for drawing the samples, the entire procedure vitiates. Therefore, the appellants cannot be convicted for the alleged offence. 7.
Legal Reasoning
10. In the instant case there is no dispute that the tanker was moving on the public highway when it was stopped and searched. Section 43 therefore clearly applied to the facts of this case. Such being the factual position there was no requirement of the officer conducting the search to record the grounds of his belief as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42. Moreover it cannot be lost sight of that the Superintendent of Police was also a member of the searching party. It has been held by this Court in M. Prabhulal vs. Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence : (2003) 8 SCC 449 that where a search is conducted by a gazetted officer himself acting under Section 41 of the NDPS Act, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of Section 42. For this reason also, in the facts of this case, it was not necessary to comply with the requirement of the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act." 27. In the matter of Kallu Khan vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2021 (19) SCC 197 in Para 12, 13 and 16 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 12. After hearing and on perusal of record and the evidence brought, it is apparent that on apprehending the accused, while making search of the motor cycle, 900 gm of smack was seized to which seizure and sample memos were prepared, as proved by the departmental witnesses. In the facts of the case at hand, where the search and seizure was 16 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 made from the vehicle used, by way of chance recovery from public road, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply. In this regard, the guidance may be taken from the judgments of this Court in S. K. Raju (supra) and S.K. Sakkar (supra). However, the recovery made by Pranveer Singh (PW6) cannot be doubted in the facts of this case. 13. Now reverting to the contention that the motor cycle seized in commission of offence does not belong to accused, however seizure of the contraband from the motor cycle cannot be connected to prove the guilt of accused. The Trial Court on appraisal of the testimony of witnesses, Constable Preetam Singh (PW1), Constable Sardar Singh (PW2), S.I. Pranveer Singh (PW6) and ConstableRajendra Prasad (PW8), who were members of the patrolling team and the witnesses of the seizure, proved beyond reasonable doubt, when they were on patrolling, the appellant came driving the seized vehicle from opposite side. On seeing the police vehicle, he had taken back the motor cycle which he was riding. However, the police team apprehended and intercepted the accused and made the search of vehicle, in which the seized contraband smack was found beneath the seat of the vehicle. However, while making search at public place, the contraband was seized from the motor cycle driven by the accused. Thus, recovery of the contraband from the motor cycle of the appellant was a chance recovery on a public road. As per Section 43 of NDPS Act, any officer of any of the departments, specified in Section 42, is having 17 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 power of seizure and arrest of the accused from a public place, or in transit of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance. The said officer may detain in search any person whom he has reason to believe that he has committed an offence punishable under the provisions of the NDPS Act, in case the possession of the narcotic drug or psychotropic substance appears to be unlawful. Learned senior counsel representing the appellant is unable to show any deficiency in following the procedure or perversity to the findings recorded by the Trial Court, affirmed by the High Court. The seizure of the motor cycle from him is proved beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the question of ownership of vehicle is not relevant. In the similar set of facts, in the case of Rizwan Khan (supra), this Court observed the ownership of the vehicle is immaterial. Therefore, the argument as advanced by learned senior counsel is of no substance and meritless. 28. The next submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that Section 50 of NDPS Act has also not been complied with as the right to the appellants about their search have not been informed by the police authority as provided under Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The provisions of Section 50 is applicable to the present search of the accused persons whereas in the present case the cannabis (Ganja) was recovered from the possession of accused persons while standing on the roadside i.e. a public place which cannot said to be his personal search. The search does not comes under the requirement of Section 50 18 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 of the NDPS Act. In the matter of Kallu Khan (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered the applicability of Section 50 of NDPS Act in search of the vehicle. In Para 16, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "16. Simultaneously, the arguments advanced by the appellant regarding non−compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act is bereft of any merit because no recovery of contraband from the person of the accused has been made to which compliance of the provision of Section 50 NDPS Act has to follow mandatorily. In the present case, in the search of motor cycle at public place, the seizure of contraband was made, as revealed. Therefore, compliance of Section 50 does not attract in the present case. It is settled in the case of Vijaysinh (supra) that in the case of personal search only, the provisions of Section 50 of the Act is required to be complied with but not in the case of vehicle as in the present case, following the judgments of Surinder Kumar (supra) and Baljinder Singh (supra). Considering the facts of this Court, the argument of non−compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act advanced by the counsel is hereby repelled." 29. In the matter of State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh reported in 1999 (6) SCC 172 in Para 12 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held: 19 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 "12. On its plain reading, Section 50 would come into play only in the case of a search of a person as distinguished from search of any premises etc. However, if the empowered officer, without any prior information as contemplated by Section 42 of the Act makes a search or causes arrest of person during the normal course of investigation into an offence or suspected offence and on completion of that search, a contraband under the NDPS Act is also recovered, the requirements of Section 50 of the Act are not attracted." 30. In the matter of Kulwinder Singh and Another vs. State of Punjab reported in 2015 (6) SCC 674 in Para 18 and 21 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: 18. In Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab, it has been ruled that the expression “possession” is not capable of precise and complete logical definition of universal application in the context of all the statutes. Recently, in Mohan Lal v. State of Rajasthan11, after referring to certain authorities, this Court has held as follows:- “21. From the aforesaid exposition of law it is quite vivid that the term “possession” for the purpose of Section 18 of the NDPS Act could mean physical possession with animus, custody or dominion over the prohibited substance with animus or even exercise of dominion and control as a result of concealment. The animus and the mental 20 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 intent which is the primary and significant element to show and establish possession. Further, personal knowledge as to the existence of the “chattel” i.e. the illegal substance at a particular location or site, at a relevant time and the intention based upon the knowledge, would constitute the unique relationship and manifest possession. In such a situation, presence and existence of possession could be justified, for the intention is to exercise right over the substance or the chattel and to act as the owner to the exclusion of others.
Arguments
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the entire procedure as prescribed under the NDPS Act has been followed in its letter and spirit and after considering the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants for the alleged offence. The appellants were found in possession of huge quantity of Ganja i.e. 82 kg of cannabis (Ganja) (30 k.g., 22 k.g, and 30 k.g. respectively) was being carried by the appellants and there has been no explanation offered by them as to how they came into the possession of such a huge quantity of cannabis (Ganja). All the mandatory provisions have been duly complied with, therefore, there is no irregularity or infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court and the appeal of the appellants are liable to be dismissed. 6 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 8. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. (PW-6) Sourabh Singh, Investigating Officer stated in his evidence that on 8/5/2013, he received information from an informer that three persons were standing near Kanchanpur Bhulumuda road, carrying illegal narcotic substance ganja in a white plastic bag, waiting for a vehicle to go somewhere. He recorded the above information in the diary No. 20, Ex. P-23, copy of which is Ex. P-24C, and sent constable Soncharan Sahu with a notice under section 160 D to summon witnesses, which has been supported by PW-7 Soncharan Sahu in his statement, which has not been denied by the defence. 10. In paragraph 5, it is stated that he had searched the three sacks kept with the accused in the presence of witnesses. And during the search, he found ganja carrying by the accused, in relation to which, he prepared search panchnama (Ex.P-4). The said witness has stated in his statement that he had identified the ganja recovered from the accused by smelling and showing it in front of witnesses and found it to be ganja and he had prepared narcotic substance identification panchnama (Ex. P-5), which has not been refuted by the defence. 11. It is also clear from the perusal of the evidence of PW-6 Saurabh Singh that he had prepared the recovery panchanama after 7 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 recovering the ganja from the accused in presence of witnesses as per Ex.P-6. The said witness has admitted in paragraph-15 of his cross-examination that he has not done any identification regarding which sack was with which accused. But from the perusal of paragraph-8 of the statement of the said witness, it is clear that as per Ex.P-11,12 and 13, he had seized separate sacks of ganja and sample from each accused after weighing. It is clear from the observation of seizure memo Ex. P-11, 12 and 13 that the said witness has separately marked A, B, C and A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 in respect of ganja and samples seized from each accused and the seizure has been made, which has not been denied by the defence. 12. It is also clear from the perusal of the evidence of the Investigating Officer that the sack and sample of ganja seized on the spot were sealed by the Investigating Officer and were seized by him and in this regard, a sample seal panchnama (Ex. P-9) was prepared. The same seal sample mentioned in the seizure memo (Ex. P-11) is also affixed in the sample panchnama (Ex. P- 9) which has not been denied by the defence. 13. According to the Investigating Officer PW-6, he showed the Ex.P- 31 to 34 arrest memo to the accused and thereafter, dehati nalsi was registered on the spot and on the basis of the said, PW-4 Jagatraj Singh lodged FIR (Ex.P-17) against the accused at the police station, which has not been denied by the defence. The 8 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 statement of the Investigating Officer, PW-6 Saurabh Singh and Assistant Sub-Inspector, PW-4 Jagatraj Singh is also confirmed by the Dehati nalsi (PW-18) and the FIR (PW-17). 14. PW-6, Investigating Officer Saurabh Singh has stated in his statement that the 6 packets of samples seized by him were sent to FSL for chemical testing by constable Mukesh Kumar through the memorandum of Superintendent of Police dated 11/5/2015, which is also supported by PW-5 Bhagirathi Chaudhary and PW- 2 Mukesh Kumar. The statement of the said witness is also confirmed by the receipt of State Forensic Science Laboratory Ex. P-15, in which the receipt of depositing the said property in FSL by constable Mukesh Kumar has been clearly provided as exhibit. 15. It is clear from the perusal of the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-6) that the property and samples seized by him on the spot were duly sealed and seized as per seizure memo Ex. P- 11, 12 and 13. Sample seal panchnama Ex. P-9 was prepared in respect of the sample seal mentioned in seizure memo Ex. P-11, 12, 13 and the seal with which the seized samples, A1, A2 and B1, B2 and C1, C2 were obtained after sealing in the seizure memo and sample seal panchnama is also mentioned in the FSL test memo report Ex. P-40 which has not been denied by the defence. Hence, this fact is proved beyond doubt that the property and samples which were seized from the possession of 9 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 the accused were sent to FSL Raipur for sample testing. The FSL report Ex. P-40 also certifies that the sample which was sent for FSL test was found to be Ganja after the test. 16. (PW-4) Jagatraj singh, Assistant Sub Inspector has stated in his statement that he had prepared the sight map of the place of incident vide Ex.P-19 which has not been denied by the defence. The said witness has also stated in his statement that he had written a memorandum of Ex. P-20 to the Executive Magistrate Saria/Baramkela regarding the preparation of sight map of the place of incident on the basis of which, the map of Ex. P-20 was prepared by the Patwari. 17. (PW-5) Bhairathi, Chowdhary, stated in his evidence that he was posted as Head Constable in Police Station Saria from May 2007 to June 2013. On 8/5/2013, Sub-Inspector Saurabh Singh handed over three sealed sacks and 6 sealed packets of samples to him to keep in the malkhana of the police station, the receipt of which is Ex. P-22, parts A to A are signed by him. The sack given for safekeeping in the malkhana was marked A.B.C and the sample packets were marked A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2 which he deposited in the store room of the police station and entered it in the store room register No. 52 dated 8/5/2013. He further stated that he had brought with him the original seized goods register of Police Station Sariya for the year 2013-2014, in No. 52 of which it is mentioned about depositing three sealed sacks marked as 10 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 A.B.C, totaling 82 kg of ganja and two sample packets of 25 grams each, totaling 6 which were marked as A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, seized in crime No. 63/2013 of Police Station Sariya. Constable Mukesh Chauhan had gone to submit the sample to FSL and returned on 16/5/2013 which has been mentioned by him in the seized goods register. 18. PW-4, Jagatram Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector stated in his evidence that on 08-05-2013 at 9.10 hrs. Police station in-charge Sub-Inspector Sauran Singh took action under Section 20 of the NDPS Act under a dehati nalsi lodged at zero near the road leading to Camp Kanchanpur Ghulmuda, and upon returning to Police Station Saria, on the basis of the dehati nalsi, he lodged a FIR No. 63/2013 at Police Station Saria under Section 20 of the NDPS Act against the accused. He further stated in his evidence that on 22-06-2013, he made a map of the crime scene in police station Saria under section 20 B NDPS Act on the information given by witness Lalchand Dansena. 19. (PW-7) Sonchand Sahu, Constable stated in his evidence that he was posted as a constable in Sariya police station. On 5/8/2013, he served notice to witnesses Lal Chand Dansena and Vikam Singh as per the instructions of the police station in-charge. Thereafter, he brought them back to the police station. The notices are Ex. P-1 and Ex. P-42. Thereafter, he gave the post/Daak given by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sarangarh Police 11 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 Station in-charge to the reader of the SDOP and received an acknowledgment from him which is Ex. P-27 and 30. For this, he was given a duty certificate which is Ex. P-21 20. Now, it is worth considering in the case that if the fact of seizure of Ganja has not been proved by the independent witnesses, then whether the evidence of the police witnesses presented by the prosecution can be believed. In this regard, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in many judicial precedents that if the evidence of police witnesses is worthy of belief then the accused can be convicted on the basis of their reliable evidence also. Similarly, the judicial precedent Nathusingh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 1973 SC 2783, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has opined that there is no law that the statement of a police office or excise officer cannot be accepted in the absence of support. If the police officer’s single evidence is of such a quality that it cannot disbelieved, then on the basis of his sole evidence, a conclusion can be drawn about the recovery of something (narcotic substance). In the context of the opinion expressed in the above honorable judicial precedents, it is now to be considered whether as per the evidence in the case, the Investigating Officer has conducted the investigation by following the mandatory and directive provisions of the NDPS Act which is supported by other evidence in the case. 12 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 21. Section 43 of the NDPS Act provides the powers of seizure and arrest in public place which towards as under: [43. Power of seizure and arrest in public place- Any officer of any of the departments mentioned in section 42 may:- (a) seize in any public place or in transit, any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in respect of which he has reason to believe an offence punishable under this Act has been committed, and, along with such drug or substance, any animal or conveyance or article liable to confiscation under this Act, any document or other article which he has reason to believe may furnish evidence of the commission of an offence punishable under this Act or any document or other article which may furnish evidence of holding any illegally acquired property which is liable for seizure or freezing or forfeiture under Chapter VA of this Act; (b) detain and search any person whom he has reason to believe to have committed an offence punishable under this Act, and if such person has any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance or controlled substance in his possession and such possession appears to him to be unlawful, arrest him and any other person in his company. Explanation- For the purposes of this section, the expression public place" includes any 13 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public.] 22. The facts of the case as well as evidence available in the case makes it clear that while the appellants were intercepted the police found cannabis (ganja) in their possession. Admittedly it was being checked on the public place i.e. on the main road that too without any prior information and the said cannabis (Ganja) was seized /recovered in transit which was being carrying by the accused person. Therefore, the issue of non-compliance of Section 42 is not applicable in the present case and the police authority have acted under Section 43 of the NDPS Act. Section 43 of the NDPS Act, when the place of occurrence was a public road and accessibility to the public and fell within the ambit of the public place. 23. 24. In view of the provisions of explanation to Section 43, the Section 42 of the NDPS had no application. The contraband were recovered and seized while in transit. As the contraband were recovered and seized from the appellants in a public place i.e. road, as contemplated in Section 43(a) i.e. "Seize in any public place or in transit", this Court is of the considered opinion that Section 43 is applicable and as such, recording for reason for belief and for taking down of information received in writing with regard to the Commission of offence 14 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 before conducting search and seizure, is not required to be complied with under Section 43 of NDPS Act. 25. In the matter of Firdoskhan Khurshidkhan vs. State of Gujarat and Another dated 30.04.2024 reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 680 has held in para 18 as under: "18. Section 42 of the NDPS Act deals with search and seizure from a building, conveyance or enclosed place. When the search and seizure is effected from a public place, the provisions of Section 43 of the NDPS Act would apply and hence, there is no merit in the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that non-compliance of the requirement of Section 42(2) vitiates the search and seizure. Hence, the said contention is noted to be rejected." 26. In the matter of State of Haryana vs. Jarnail Singh and Others reported in 2004 (5) SCC 188 in Para 9 and 10 of its judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: "9. Sections 42 and 43, therefore, contemplate two different situations. Section 42 contemplates entry into and search of any building, conveyance or enclosed place, while Section 43 contemplates a seizure made in any public place or in transit. If seizure is made under Section 42 between sunset and sunrise, the requirement of the proviso thereto has to be complied with. There is no such proviso in Section 43 of the Act and, therefore, it is obvious that if a public conveyance is searched in a public place, the officer making the search is not required to 15 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 record his satisfaction as contemplated by the proviso to Section 42 of the NDPS Act for searching the vehicle between sunset and the sunrise.
Decision
22. In the case at hand, the appellant, we hold, had the requisite degree of control when, even if the said narcotic substance was not within his physical control at that moment. To give an example, a person can conceal prohibited narcotic substance in a property and move out thereafter. The said person because of necessary animus would be in possession of the said substance even if he is not, at the moment, in physical control. The situation cannot be viewed differently when a person conceals and hides the prohibited narcotic substance in a public space. In the second category of cases, the person would be in possession because he has the necessary animus and the intention to retain control and dominion." 21 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 21. In State of H.P. v. Pawan Kumar, it has been held that: “10. We are not concerned here with the wide definition of the word “person”, which in the legal world includes corporations, associations or body of individuals as factually in these type of cases search of their premises can be done and not of their person. Having regard to the scheme of the Act and the context in which it has been used in the section it naturally means a human being or a living individual unit and not an artificial person. The word has to be understood in a broad common-sense manner and, therefore, not a naked or nude body of a human being but the manner in which a normal human being will move about in a civilised society. Therefore, the most appropriate meaning of the word “person” appears to be — “the body of a human being as presented to public view usually with its appropriate coverings and clothing”. In a civilised society appropriate coverings and clothings are considered absolutely essential and no sane human being comes in the gaze of others without appropriate coverings and clothings. The appropriate coverings will include footwear also as normally it is considered an essential article to be worn while moving outside one’s home. Such appropriate coverings or clothings or footwear, after being worn, move along with the human 22 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 body without any appreciable or extra effort. Once worn, they would not normally get detached from the body of the human being unless some specific effort in that direction is made. For interpreting the provision, rare cases of some religious monks and sages, who, according to the tenets of their religious belief do not cover their body with clothings, are not to be taken notice of. Therefore, the work 'person' would mean a human being with appropriate coverings and clothings and also footwear. 11. A bag, briefcase or any such article or container, etc. can, under no circumstances, be treated as body of a human being. They are given a separate name and are identifiable as such. They cannot even remotely be treated to be part of the body of a human being. Depending upon the physical capacity of a person, he may carry any number of items like a bag, a briefcase, a suitcase, a tin box, a thaila, a jhola, a gathri, a holdall, a carton, etc. of varying size, dimension or weight. However, while carrying or moving along with them, some extra effort or energy would be required. They would have to be carried either by the hand or hung on the shoulder or back or placed on the head. In common parlance it would be said that a person is carrying a particular article, specifying the manner in which it was carried like hand, shoulder, back 23 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 or head, etc. Therefore, it is not possible to include these articles within the ambit of the word “person” occurring in Section 50 of the Act." 31. The next submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is that Section 52 of the NDPS Act as well as Circular of 1/89 issued by Central Government have not been complied with in the case for drawing of the samples from the seized articles. Therefore, there is substantial non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act and the appellants are entitled for acquittal. 32. The another submission made by learned counsel for the appellants is the procedure prescribed in the Circular 1/89 issued by the Central Government has not been followed and the samples have been drawn in a defective manner. The public authorities should have drawn sample from each of the packets before homogenization or they should have drawn the sample from the sacks seized from the accused randomly but the procedure drawn by the police that first they have homogenized the entire quantity of cannabis (Ganja). Though the procedure is laid down in the Standing order 1/89 for drawing of the sample but merely non-compliance of the procedure for drawing of the sample does not vitiates the entire search and seizure proceedings when other evidences have duly supported the 24 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 prosecution case that the cannabis (Ganja) was seized from the possession of the appellant. The Standing Order 1/89 is guideline for drawing of the sample. 33. Recently in the matter of Bharat Aambale vs. The State of Chhattisgarh in CRA No. 250 of 2025, order dated 06.01.2025, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52-A of the NDPS Act if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the Court regarding both recovery and possession of the contraband and from the accused, then even in such cases the Courts can without hesitation proceed for conviction notwithstanding any procedural difficulty in terms of Section 52-A of the NDPS Act. 34. In the matter of Bharat Aambale (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 25 to 37 has held as under: 25. In Noor Aga (supra) the order of conviction had been set-aside not just on the ground of violation of Section 52A but due to several other discrepancies in the physical evidence as to the colour and weight, and due to the lack of any independent witnesses. In fact, this Court despite being conscious of the procedural deficiencies in the said case in terms of Section 52A observed that the matter may have been entirely different if there were no other discrepancies or if the other material on record were found to be convincing or supported by independent witnesses. 25 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 The relevant observations read as under: - “107. The seal was not even deposited in the malkhana. As no explanation whatsoever has been offered in this behalf, it is difficult to hold that sanctity of the recovery was ensured. Even the malkhana register was not produced. xxx xxx xxx 108. There exist discrepancies also in regard to the time of recovery. The recovery memo, Exhibit PB, shows that the time of seizure was 11.20 p.m. PW 1 Kulwant Singh and PW 2 K.K. Gupta, however, stated that the time of seizure was 8.30 p.m. The appellant's defence was that some carton left by some passenger was passed upon him, being a crew member in this regard assumes importance (see Jitendra para 6). The panchnama was said to have been drawn at 10 p.m. as per PW 1 whereas PW 2 stated that panchnama was drawn at 8.30 p.m. Exhibit PA, containing the purported option to conduct personal search under Section 50 of the Act, only mentioned the time when the flight landed at the airport. xxx xxx xxx 111. In a case of this nature, where there are a large number of discrepancies, the appellant has been gravely prejudiced by their non- examination. It is true that what matters is the quality of the evidence and not the quantity thereof but in a case of this nature where 26 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 procedural safeguards were required to be strictly complied with, it is for the prosecution to explain why the material witnesses had not been examined. The matter might have been different if the evidence of the investigating officer who recovered the material objects was found to be convincing. The statement of the investigating officer is wholly unsubstantiated. There is nothing on record to show that the said witnesses had turned hostile. Examination of the independent witnesses was all the more necessary inasmuch as there exist a large number of discrepancies in the statement of official witnesses in regard to search and seizure of which we may now take note.” (Emphasis supplied) 26. Non-compliance or delayed compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder may lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. However, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to when such inference may be drawn, and it would all depend on the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case. Such delay or deviation from Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the Standing Order(s) / Rules thereunder will not, by itself, be fatal to the case of the prosecution, unless there are discrepancies in the physical evidence which may not have been there had such compliance been done. What is required is that the courts take a holistic and 27 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 cumulative view of the discrepancies that exist in the physical evidence adduced by the prosecution and correlate or link the same with any procedural lapses or deviations. Thus, whenever, there is any deviation or non-compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52A, the courts are required to appreciate the same keeping in mind the discrepancies that exist in the prosecution’s case. In such instances of procedural error or deficiency, the courts ought to be extra-careful and must not overlook or brush aside the discrepancies lightly and rather should scrutinize the material on record even more stringently to satisfy itself of the aspects of possession, seizure or recovery of such material in the first place. 27. In such circumstances, particularly where there has been lapse on the part of the police in either following the procedure laid down in Section 52A of the NDPS Act or the prosecution in adequately proving compliance of the same, it would not be appropriate for the courts to resort to the statutory presumption of commission of an offence from the possession of illicit material under Section 54 of the NDPS Act, unless the court is otherwise satisfied as regards the seizure or recovery of such material from the accused persons from the other material on record. Similarly, irrespective of any failure to follow the procedure laid under Section 52A of the NDPS Act, if the other material on record adduced by the prosecution inspires confidence and satisfies the court regarding both the recovery and possession of the contraband from the accused, then even in such cases, the courts can without hesitation proceed for 28 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 conviction notwithstanding any procedural defect in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. 28. In Khet Singh v. Union of India reported in (2002) 4 SCC 380 this Court held that the Standing Order(s) issued by the NCB and the procedure envisaged therein is only intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer-in-charge of the investigation. It further observed that there may, however, be circumstances in which it would not be possible to follow these guidelines to the letter, particularly in cases of chance recovery or lack of proper facility being available at the spot. In such circumstances of procedural illegality, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and rather the courts would only be required to consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused or not. Further it directed, that in such cases of procedural lapses or delays, the officer would be duty bound to indicate and explain the reason behind such delay or deficiency whilst preparing the memo. The relevant observations read as under: - “5. It is true that the search and seizure of contraband article is a serious aspect in the matter of investigation related to offences under the NDPS Act. The NDPS Act and the Rules framed thereunder have laid down a detailed procedure and guidelines as to the manner in which search and seizure are to be effected. If there is any violation of these 29 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 guidelines, the courts would take a serious view and the benefit would be extended to the accused. The offences under the NDPS Act are grave in nature and minimum punishment prescribed under the statute is incarceration for a long period. As the possession of any narcotic drug or psychotropic substance by itself is made punishable under the Act, the seizure of the article from the appellant is of vital importance. xxx xxx xxx 10. The instructions issued by the Narcotics Control Bureau, New Delhi are to be followed by the officer-in-charge of the investigation of the crimes coming within the purview of the NDPS Act, even though these instructions do not have the force of law. They are intended to guide the officers and to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer-in-charge of the investigation. It is true that when a contraband article is seized during investigation or search, a seizure mahazar should be prepared at the spot in accordance with law. There may, however, be circumstances in which it would not have been possible for the officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, as it may be a chance recovery and the officer may not have the facility to prepare a seizure mahazar at the spot itself. If the seizure is effected at the place where there are no witnesses and there is no facility for 30 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 weighing the contraband article or other requisite facilities are lacking, the officer can prepare the seizure mahazar at a later stage as and when the facilities are available, provided there are justifiable and reasonable grounds to do so. In that event, where the seizure mahazar is prepared at a later stage, the officer should indicate his reasons as to why he had not prepared the mahazar at the spot of recovery. If there is any inordinate delay in preparing the seizure mahazar, that may give an opportunity to tamper with the contraband article allegedly seized from the accused. There may also be allegations that the article seized was by itself substituted and some other items were planted to falsely implicate the accused. To avoid these suspicious circumstances and to have a fair procedure in respect of search and seizure, it is always desirable to prepare the seizure mahazar at the spot itself from where the contraband articles were taken into custody. xxx xxx xxx 16. Law on the point is very clear that even if there is any sort of procedural illegality in conducting the search and seizure, the evidence collected thereby will not become inadmissible and the court would consider all the circumstances and find out whether any serious prejudice had been caused to the accused. If the search and seizure was in 31 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 complete defiance of the law and procedure and there was any possibility of the evidence collected likely to have been tampered with or interpolated during the course of such search or seizure, then, it could be said that the evidence is not liable to be admissible in evidence.” (Emphasis supplied) 29. A similar view as above was reiterated in the decision of State of Punjab v. Makhan Chand reported in (2004) 3 SCC 453 wherein this Court after examining the purport of Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s) issued thereunder, held that the procedure prescribed under the said order is merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation and they were not inexorable rules. The relevant observations read as under: - “10. This contention too has no substance for two reasons. Firstly, Section 52-A, as the marginal note indicates, deals with “disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances”. Under sub-section (1), the Central Government, by a notification in the Official Gazette, is empowered to specify certain narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances, having regard to the hazardous nature, vulnerability to theft, substitution, constraints of proper storage space and such other relevant considerations, so that even if they are material objects seized in a criminal case, they could be 32 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 disposed of after following the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (2) and (3). If the procedure prescribed in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 52-A is complied with and upon an application, the Magistrate issues the certificate contemplated by sub-section (2), then sub-section (4) provides that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 or the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, such inventory, photographs of narcotic drugs or substances and any list of samples drawn under sub-section (2) of Section 52-A as certified by the Magistrate, would be treated as primary evidence in respect of the offence. Therefore, Section 52-A(1) does not empower the Central Government to lay down the procedure for search of an accused, but only deals with the disposal of seized narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. 11. Secondly, when the very same Standing Orders came up for consideration in Khet Singh v. Union of India this Court took the view that they are merely intended to guide the officers to see that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer in charge of the investigation. It was also held that they were not inexorable rules as there could be circumstances in which it may not be possible for the seizing officer to prepare the mahazar at the spot, if it is a chance recovery, where the officer may not have the facility to prepare the seizure mahazar at the 33 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 spot itself. Hence, we do not find any substance in this contention.” (Emphasis supplied) 30. Thus, from above it is clear that the procedure prescribed by the Standing Order(s) / Rules in terms of Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only intended to guide the officers and to ensure that a fair procedure is adopted by the officer- in-charge of the investigation, and as such what is required is substantial compliance of the procedure laid therein. We say so because, due to varying circumstances, there may be situations wherein it may not always be possible to forward the seized contraband immediately for the purpose of sampling. This could be due to various factors, such as the sheer volume of the contraband, the peculiar nature of the place of seizure, or owing to the volatility of the substance so seized that may warrant slow and safe handling. There could be situations where such contraband after being sampled cannot be preserved due to its hazardous nature and must be destroyed forthwith or vice-verse where the nature of the case demands that they are preserved and remain untouched. Due to such multitude of possibilities or situations, neither can the police be realistically expected to rigidly adhere to the procedure laid down in Section 52A or its allied Rules / Orders, nor can a strait-jacket formula be applied for insisting compliance of each procedure in a specified timeline to the letter, due to varying situations or requirements of each case. Thus, what is actually required is only a substantial 34 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 compliance of the procedure laid down under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Standing Order(s) / Rules framed thereunder, and any discrepancy or deviation in the same may lead the court to draw an adverse inference against the police as per the facts of each and every case. When it comes to the outcome of trial, it is only after taking a cumulative view of the entire material on record including such discrepancies, that the court should proceed either to convict or acquit the accused. Non- compliance of the procedure envisaged under Section 52A may be fatal only in cases where such non-compliance goes to the heart or root of the matter. In other words, the discrepancy should be such that it renders the entire case of the prosecution doubtful, such as instances where there are significant discrepancies in the colour or description of the substance seized from that indicated in the FSL report as was the case in Noor Aga (supra), or where the contraband was mixed in and stored with some other commodity like vegetables and there is no credible indication of whether the narcotic substance was separated and then weighed as required under the Standing Order(s) or Rules, thereby raising doubts over the actual quantity seized as was the case in Mohammed Khalid (supra), or where the recovery itself is suspicious and uncorroborated by any witnesses such as in Mangilal (supra), or where the bulk material seized in contravention of Section 52A was not produced before the court despite being directed to be preserved etc. These illustrations are only for the purposes of brining clarity on what may 35 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 constitute as a significant discrepancy in a given case, and by no means is either exhaustive in nature or supposed to be applied mechanically in any proceeding under the NDPS Act. It is for the courts to see what constitutes as a significant discrepancy, keeping in mind the peculiar facts, the materials on record and the evidence adduced. At the same time, we may caution the courts, not to be hyper-technical whilst looking into the discrepancies that may exist, like slight differences in the weight, colour or numbering of the sample etc. The Court may not discard the entire prosecution case looking into such discrepancies as more often than not an ordinarily an officer in a public place would not be carrying a good scale with him, as held in Noor Aga (supra). It is only those discrepancies which particularly have the propensity to create a doubt or false impression of illegal possession or recovery, or to overstate or inflate the potency, quality or weight of the substance seized that may be pertinent and not mere clerical mistakes, provided they are explained properly. Whether, a particular discrepancy is critical to the prosecution’s case would depend on the facts of each case, the nature of substance seized, the quality of evidence on record etc. 31. At the same time, one must be mindful of the fact that Section 52A of the NDPS Act is only a procedural provision dealing with seizure, inventory, and disposal of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances and does not exhaustively lay down the evidentiary rules for proving seizure or recovery, nor 36 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 does it dictate the manner in which evidence is to be led during trial. It in no manner prescribes how the seizure or recovery of narcotic substances is to be proved or what can be led as evidence to prove the same. Rather, it is the general principles of evidence, as enshrined in the Evidence Act that governs how seizure or recovery may be proved. 32. Thus, the prosecution sans the compliance of the procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act will not render itself helpless but can still prove the seizure or recovery of contraband by leading cogent evidence in this regard such as by examining the seizing officer, producing independent witnesses to the recovery, or presenting the original quantity of seized substances before the court. The evidentiary value of these materials is ultimately to be assessed and looked into by the court. The court should consider whether the evidence inspires confidence. The court should look into the totality of circumstances and the credibility of the witnesses, being mindful to be more cautious in their scrutiny where such procedure has been flouted. The cumulative effect of all evidence must be considered to determine whether the prosecution has successfully established the case beyond reasonable doubt as held in Noor Aga (supra). 33. Even in cases where there is non-compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 52A, it does not necessarily vitiate the trial or warrant an automatic acquittal. Courts have consistently held that procedural lapses must be viewed in the context 37 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 of the overall evidence. If the prosecution can otherwise establish the chain of custody, corroborate the seizure with credible testimony, and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the mere non- compliance with Section 52A may not be fatal. The emphasis must be on substantive justice rather than procedural technicalities, and keeping in mind that the salutary objective of the NDPS Act is to curb the menace of drug trafficking. 34. At this stage we may clarify the scope and purport of Section 52A sub-section (4) with a view to obviate any confusion. Sub-section (4) of Section 52A provides that every court trying an offence under the NDPS Act, shall treat the inventory, photographs and samples of the seized substance that have been certified by the magistrate as primary evidence. 35. What this provision entails is that, where the seized substance after being forwarded to the officer empowered is inventoried, photographed and thereafter samples are drawn therefrom as per the procedure prescribed under the said provision and the Rules / Standing Order(s), and the same is also duly certified by a magistrate, then such certified inventory, photographs and samples has to mandatorily be treated as primary evidence. The use of the word “shall” indicates that it would be mandatory for the court to treat the same as primary evidence if twin conditions are fulfilled being (i) that the inventory, photographs and samples drawn are certified by the magistrate AND (ii) that the court is satisfied that the entire process was done in 38 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 consonance and substantial compliance with the procedure prescribed under the provision and its Rules / Standing Order(s). 36. Even where the bulk quantity of the seized material is not produced before the court or happens to be destroyed or disposed in contravention of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the same would be immaterial and have no bearing on the evidentiary value of any inventory, photographs or samples of such substance that is duly certified by a magistrate and prepared in terms of the said provision. We say so, because sub-section (4) of Section 52A was inserted to mitigate the issue of degradation, pilferage or theft of seized substances affecting the very trial. It was often seen that, due to prolonged trials, the substance that was seized would deteriorate in quality or completely disappear even before the trial could proceed, by the time the trial would commence, the unavailability of such material would result in a crucial piece of evidence to establish possession becoming missing and the outcome of the trial becoming a foregone conclusion. The legislature being alive to this fact, thought fit to introduce an element of preservation of such evidence of possession of contraband in the form of inventory, photographs and samples and imbued certain procedural safeguards and supervision through the requirement of certification by a magistrate, which is now contained in sub-section (4) of Section 52A. In other words, any inventory, photographs or samples of seized substance that was prepared in substantial compliance of the 39 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 procedure under Section 52A of the NDPS Act and the Rules / Standing Order(s) thereunder would have to mandatorily be treated as primary evidence, irrespective of the fact that the bulk quantity has not been produced and allegedly destroyed without any lawful order. 37. Section 52A sub-section (4) should not be conflated as a rule of evidence in the traditional sense, i.e., it should not be construed to have laid down that only the certified inventory, photographs and samples of seized substance will be primary evidence and nothing else. The rule of ‘Primary Evidence’ or ‘Best Evidence’ is now well settled. In order to prove a fact, only the best evidence to establish such fact must be led and adduced which often happens to be the original evidence itself. The primary evidence for proving possession will always be the seized substance itself. However, in order to mitigate the challenges in preservation of such substance till the duration of trial, due to pilferage, theft, degradation or any other related circumstances, the legislature consciously incorporated sub-section (4) in Section 52A to bring even the inventory, photographs or samples of such seized substance on the same pedestal as the original substance, and by a deeming fiction has provided that the same be treated as primary evidence, provided they have been certified by a magistrate in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed. This, however, does not mean that where Section 52A has not been complied, the prosecution would be helpless, and cannot prove the 40 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 factum of possession by adducing other primary evidence in this regard such as by either producing the bulk quantity itself, or examining the witnesses to the recovery etc. What Section 52A sub-section (4) of the NDPS Act does is it creates a new form of primary evidence by way of a deeming fiction which would be on par with the original seized substance as long as the same was done in substantial compliance of the procedure prescribed thereunder, however, the said provision by no means renders the other evidence in original to be excluded as primary evidence, it neither confines nor restricts the manner of proving possession to only one mode i.e., through such certified inventory, photographs or samples such that all other material are said to be excluded from the ambit of ‘evidence’, rather it can be said that the provision instead provides one additional limb of evidentiary rule in proving such possession. Thus, even in the absence of compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act, the courts cannot simply overlook the other cogent evidence in the form of the seized substance itself or the testimony of the witnesses examined, all that the courts would be required in the absence of any such compliance is to be more careful while appreciating the evidence. 35. Further in Para 41 and 42 of the said judgment of Bharat Aambale (supra) held that: 41. As per Clause 2.5 of the Standing Order No. 1 of 89 i.e., the relevant standing order in force at the time of seizure, where multiple packages or packets are seized, they first have to be subjected to an 41 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 identification test by way of a colour test to ascertain which packets are of the same sized, weigh and contents. Thereafter, all packets which are identical to each other in all respects will be bunched in lots, in the case of Ganja, they may be bunched in lots of 40 packets each. Thereafter from each lot, one sample and one in duplicate has to be drawn. The relevant clause reads as under: - “2.5 However, when the packages/containers seized together are of identical size and weight, bearing identical markings, and the contents of each package given identical results on colour test by the drug identification kit, conclusively indicating that the packages are identical in all respects, the packages/containers may be carefully bunched in lots of ten packages/containers except in the case of Ganja and hashish (charas), where it may be bunched in lots of 40 such packages/containers. For each such lot of packages/containers, one sample (in duplicate) may be drawn.” 42. As per Clause 2.8 of the Standing Order No. 1 of 89, while drawing a sample from a particular lot, representative samples are to be drawn, in other words, equal quantity has to be taken from each packet in a particular lot, that then has to be mixed to make one composite sample. The relevant clause reads as under: - “2.8 While drawing one sample (in duplicate) from a particular lot, it must be ensured that representative samples in equal quantity are 42 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 taken from each package/container of that lot and mixed together to make a composite whole from which the samples are drawn for that lot.” 36. In the present case the entire search and seizure proceedings have found genuine and the correct procedure have been drawn by the police persons. Though the independent witnesses and weighing witness have not supported the case of prosecution, but the seizure of cannabis (Ganja) and its weight and sampling were proved by Investigating Officer and nothing adverse could be found to disbelieve their evidences which further proves that the appellants were found in possession of such a huge quantity of cannabis (Ganja). The appellants did not able to impute any palpable to make good his case that there has been non- compliance of any mandatory provisions of the NDPS Act. 37. There is no material available on record so as to arrive at finding that the accused person has been falsely implicated in this case. Section 20 of the NDPS Act provides that whichever in contravention of any provisions of this Act or any rule made therein possess cannabis (Ganja) shall be punished in accordance with the said provisions. Section 20 (b) uses the "possess". In the present case the appellants were found in possession of total 82 kg of cannabis (Ganja). The judgment passed by learned trial Court is quite detailed judgment which has dealt with every aspect of the matter and the analysis made therein clearly proves the appellants have committed the offence 43 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 in question and was carrying cannabis (Ganja) weighing 82 kg. 38. The FSL report Ex.-P-39 and P-40 further proves that the sample packets of cannabis (Ganja) which were drawn from the total quantity of cannabis (Ganja) were found to be contained with cannabis (Ganja) contents and further corroborates the allegation against the appellants. 39. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment passed by learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record as well as law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the same needs no interference as such the judgment of conviction is hereby affirmed. 40. As far as the sentence part is concerned, the incident is of the year 2013 at that time the accused persons were aged about 30, 25 & 27 years, respectively. These appeals are pending before this Court since 2016 and they were on bail during pendency of this appeal and considering the entire aspects of the matter the jail sentence imposed by the learned trial Court is reduced from 12 years to 10 years. However, the fine amount imposed by the learned trial Court shall remain unaltered. 41. In the result, both the appeals filed by the appellants are hereby partly allowed. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and they are directed to surrender forthwith and/or be 44 CRA Nos. 197/2016 and 32/2016 taken into custody for serving out the remaining sentence. 42. At this juncture, it is informed that after grant of bail by this Court vide order dated 31-10-2018 the accused Premchand Meher committed another offence and for which he has been arrested and as on date he is in jail. 43. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 44. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) SD/- Chief Justice Amardeep/Shoaib